Friday, July 24, 2015

Did the NIST, after many
years of intensive investigation, with the benefit of all its resources
and major funding, perform due diligence in their pursuit of answering
the question;WHY DID WTC 7 COLLAPSE?

After
combining their years of engineering research with an analysis the
day’s events, was the NIST honest or deceitful in the completeness of
their final determinations?

The NIST, through their spokesperson,
lead investigator, Shyam Sundar, at a 2008 press conference announcing
the conclusion of the WTC 7 investigation, uncompromisingly stated that;
“the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a
mystery”, and that the NIST “did not find any evidence that explosives
were used to bring the building down.”

Dr. Sundar, did admit that
his organization had a very difficult time finding an engineering
hypothesis to explain what occurred at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11 to WTC 7.

Given
the length of the investigation, the wealth of human resources
committed to it, and the degree of difficulty understanding the
mechanism behind the total structural failure of WTC 7, it is reasonable
to expect that all data pertaining to the building’s structural status
for its last remaining hour, would be subject to the most intensive,
careful, and methodical engineering scrutiny.

The published
evidence shows that the NIST’s primary focus was directed at finding
support for their column 79 buckling hypothesis, while dispelling
contradictory evidence as lacking sufficient credibility to warrant
further investigation.

Case in point, involves the observed
activity from northwest face windows on the 13th floor of WTC 7 just
prior to its complete collapse.

The NIST hypothesis is anchored
in the northeast, where they believe column 79 at the 13th floor lost
its lateral support, buckled, and revealed its failure through the
visible collapse of the east penthouse.

In passing, the NIST in
their final report acknowledged some unexplained activity occurring at
the other end of WTC 7 saying that; “Just prior to the collapse of the
building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the
same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.”

Without any additional data available, this appeared to be a fair assessment. The NIST, using the limited video and photo evidence they had cataloged, determined that there was no visual data to provide an explanation for this “unusual behaviour”.

But was there really only limited video available?

Going over the video evidence provided by the NIST through FOIA, there is good reason to question the veracity of the NIST claim.

A logical place to investigate the NIST contention is to carefully examine the video
in question, where “a jet of flames was pushed” from 13th floor windows
on the west side of the north face, well away from the east side column
79 location.

Screen captures from the NIST FOIA video. The left frame was captured a few video frames prior to the right frame.

The NIST kept track of all their video data records a large database.

Video
records sent to the NIST were cataloged and identified in this database
which was used by researchers to locate and analyze clips of interest.

According to their database records, the video
that contained the “jet of flames” that occurred close to the time of
WTC7’s collapse, was identified as belonging to CBS-Net Dub5.

The
NIST cataloger, as shown from their notes, not only observed the “jet
of flames”, but also noted a visible “puff of smoke” partially obscured
by scan lines created when the original playback tape was deliberately
fast-forwarded while it was being copied.

Given
the importance of any dramatic data appearing close to the collapse
time of WTC 7, it is very odd that the NIST investigators paid so little
heed to the “noted” smoke plume, or the fact that it was deliberately
obscured by intentional fast forwarding. All they noted was the “jet of
flames”, which were also initially obscured by fast forwarding.

Later in the video
recording, the sudden jet of flames could not be ignored when they
appeared clearly after the person ‘directing’ the NIST copy decided to
replay that portion at normal speed.

But that’s not all.

The fast forwarding obscures an even more significant event.

Behind
the obscuring horizontal lines induced by fast forwarding, a series of
explosive plumes can be seen coming from the direction of the window
that seconds later would produce that “jet of flames”. Additionally, a
white cloud forms near the NW corner and proceeds easterly.

This should have aroused great interest on the part of researchers, but without the benefit of a clean unobscured video copy, they possibly decided further investigation was pointless.

Had
the NIST investigators shown more determination, they would have
discovered that there was indeed a clean HQ copy of the very same video, without the intentional image obscuration.

The NIST cataloged the video
source as CBS, but it appears that CBS licensed its use from the rights
holder, FOX. FOX through their subsidiary company, ITN, offer a clean
preview copy in flash video format (.flv). A 5-year license for an HQ copy is available at a price determined by the purchaser’s intended usage.

Had the NIST or FEMA officially communicated their interest in the video more earnestly they would have easily discovered the availability of this HQ version.

Given
the amount of wandering fire that was observed in WTC 7 on 9/11, it
could easily be said that one more was hardly worthy of special
attention.

But considering the location and timing, in
conjunction with the fact that the most plausible explanation for the
implosive collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, this event
takes on greater significance.

A controlled demolition by
implosion would require that the lower core of WTC 7 be blown out
through the intensive use of conventional RDX-like explosives, possibly
in the wake of a steel structure-weakening pre-collapse mechanism, like
nano-thermite.

Studying the clean copy of the video that the NIST never investigated, several things can be observed;

With difficulty (due to the poor quality of the free public ‘flash video’
preview), a very rapid series of west-to-east dark bursts can be seen
behind windows on the 13th floor, just prior to the plumes erupting from
previously fire-broken windows. (It is necessary to obtain the full
quality original that FOX controls in order to properly see this
activity.)

The explosive dark plumes appeared to erupt from the same 13th floor windows on the west side of the north face of WTC 7.

And a lower, rapidly expanding, large white cloud moves east from the west end of the north face of WTC 7.

According to the NIST, this is what followed shortly after these events.

“Just
prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames
was pushed from windows in the same area. [13th floor] The event that caused this unusual behaviour has not been identified.”

This
web site is a joint effort by David Chandler (retired physics teacher),
Jonathan Cole (professional engineer), and Nathan Flach (video
archivist). We are all independent 9/11 researchers, and affiliated
with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Our goal has been to
uncover the truth and shed some light on the events of 9/11, each in our
own way.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

A review of the history of military orders governing response
to hijackings casts doubt on the idea that the June 1 order
was instrumental in hobbling the military's response on September 11.
The June 1 order superseded the 1997 directive CJCSI 3610.01.
3
The 1997 directive also stipulated that the NMCC
"forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance
for piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
The 1997 directive cancels three earlier ones:

MCM-102-92, 24 July 1992,
"Hijacking of Civil Aircraft"

CJCS MOP 51, 13 April 1992,
"Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Military and Military Contract Aircraft"

These earlier documents do not appear to be archived on dtic.mil.
It would be interesting to learn what policy they mandated
for military response to hijackings, and, in particular,
whether it required approval by the Secretary of Defense.

Layered Failures

The air defense network had, on September 11th,
predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack.
Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over,
more than an hour and a half after it had started.
The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response
in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas.
There are failures upon failures, in what might be described
as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth.
The failures can be divided into four types.

Failures to report:
Based on the official timeline,
the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft
were many times longer than the prescribed times.

Failures to scramble:
NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft,
failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.

Failures to intercept:
Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets
because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or
in the wrong directions.

Failures to redeploy:
Fighters that were airborne and within interception range
of the deviating aircraft
were not redeployed to pursue them.